Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,248 Year: 5,505/9,624 Month: 530/323 Week: 27/143 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pesky Starlight
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 37 (6923)
03-15-2002 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by quicksink
03-15-2002 10:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
music to my ears

John Paul:
Has anyone here read the book? Has anyone here done any research to see if Humphreys has responded to RTB? Oh, no to both.
Let me help you:
Humphreys answers his critics
and
SEVEN YEARS OF STARLIGHT AND TIME
It's actually a pretty cool concept. He also has a video about it.
Starlight & Time: book & video
Is that music still playing?
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by quicksink, posted 03-15-2002 10:57 AM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by doctrbill, posted 03-15-2002 10:49 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 11 by quicksink, posted 03-15-2002 11:31 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 16 by Peter, posted 03-25-2002 9:40 AM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 37 (7101)
03-17-2002 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by quicksink
03-15-2002 11:31 PM


quote:
qs:
John Paul
We could play reference wars, or we could really get technical.
John Paul:
How can we get technical if you haven’t read what Humphreys has written on the subject? After all it is his baby you’re talking about. Don’t you want to see the baby for yourself before passing judgement on it?
quote:
qs:
I like space, time, and the theory of relativity, and maybe I'll venture into some of the basic concepts.
John Paul:
Anytime you want to start, please procede.
quote:
qs:
PS- you have not made any responses to "animals on the ark"
John Paul:
I was under the impression that your argument was that no Creationist could/ has answered your questions. The book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study does just that.
quote:
qs:
It is not a moral obligation to read your books.
John Paul:
It just stands to reason that you should know what you are arguing against before arguing against it.
quote:
qs:
no one here is obliged to actuallly do intensive research on the concept, as I assume you haven't either.
John Paul:
You assume wrong. Last year I bought a book Volvox- Molecular-Genetic Origins of Multicellularity and Cellular Differentiation by David Kirk ($110.00) and I have THE HGP copy of Nature. I also get Nature updates daily.
Ya see qs, I WANT to know. And the more I know the more confident I grow that the alleged ‘great transformations’ spewed by the theory of evolution are nothing but ‘just-so’ stories. Right there next to abiogenesis.
quote:
qs:
How do I come to that assumption? There are so many scientific technicals in that book it could make most head's spin (like me).
John Paul:
So you HAVE read Humphreys’ book? Welcome to the wonderful age of 12. Give it time young Skywalker.
quote:
qs:
Unless you have a hidden telent for the general theory of realivity, time dilation, and spacial contraction, and understnad the concepts of time and space being relative to the speed of a frame of reference, I seriously doubt you could interpret the technicals of the book. I couldn't, you couldn't, and most creationists couldn't. But all the scientific jargon certainly made him look sophisticated in the eyes of the common man, but in the mind of the world class physicist, the super-mathmetician, etc.
John Paul:
I have a very good understanding of what he (Humphreys) is talking about. However a concept doesn’t rise or fall on the assurance that 100% of the people will understand the ‘scientific jargon’ put forth in said concept.
[QUOTE]qs:
and here is a link to another anti-book site, where 4 incredibly experienced mathmeticians and physicists critiqued the book- their opinion matters a little.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/95q3faf/95q3star.html
John Paul:
Russell Humphreys challenges Hugh Ross
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_02.asp
Also Humphreys has answered the charges made by Page & Conners
quote:
qs:
From reading that article, it became clear that he is the typical creationist, bending facts, distorting science, and spreading lies.
John Paul:
Who? Hugh Ross? I agree.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by quicksink, posted 03-15-2002 11:31 PM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by quicksink, posted 03-18-2002 4:22 AM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 37 (10503)
05-28-2002 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Peter
03-25-2002 9:40 AM


Peter:
I'm not entirely sure of JP's full position re: YEC,
but even if Humphrey's were right (I've not read his
book yet, although I'll search it out) it poses a problem
for MANY YEC's.
John Paul:
If you had read the book you would have seen it is exactly what YEC requires.
Peter:
Effectively, if right, Humphrey's hypothesis leads to the
conclusion that the story in Genesis is NOT strictly speaking
the literal truth.
John Paul:
I don't have to book with me so if I have time later I will fill in some points. Regardless the way he writes it goes along with a literal Genesis.
Peter:
Why ?
Genesis says that from nothing to a fully populated Earth
took 6 days.
John Paul:
Fully populated is a stretch. Is today's world fully populated?
Peter:
The earth itself is created on day 1 ... before light is created,
and three 'days' before any stars are created (on day 4).
How could stars be created AFTER the earth, and yet their light
be millions of years old, when the earth is only thousands
of years old ?
John Paul:
It all has to do with event horizons, time dilation and relativity.
Peter:
We either have a Young Earth, but the bible is wrong.
OR
A young earth and Humphrey's is wrong.
(OR an old earth, natch )
I cannot see any way that Humphrey's hypothesis could be compatible
with Genesis. Admittedly I haven't read the book ... so perhaps JP
(who has?) could answer this one.
John Paul:
The cool part about the book (now in video) is Humphreys puts down his version on how he believes God Created the cosmos, day by day. If his premise is correct as the event horizon of the white hole reaches earth, although only 24 hours of earth time go by, billions of years of processes take place outside of the event horizon.
He uses Stephen Hawking's idea of an astronaut and a astronomer. That is as the astronomer watches the astronaut fall towards an event horizon of a black hole the astronomer notices the astronauts time piece is moving slower and slower. Once the astronaut gets to the EH the astronomer observes the astronaut's time piece has effectively stopped. What Humphreys does is to turn that around and use the astronaut observing the astronomer. As the astronaut nears the EH he observes the clock on the astronomer's wall speeding up. As the astronaut reaches the EH the astronomer's clock becomes a blur because the hands are moving too fast.
IOW God used relativity to Create the universe in 6 days, earth time.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Peter, posted 03-25-2002 9:40 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Philip, posted 05-29-2002 12:43 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 21 by Peter, posted 05-29-2002 7:30 AM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 37 (10553)
05-29-2002 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by mark24
05-29-2002 4:39 AM


Mark:
Just a quickie.
Does Humphreys explain how the earth escapes the gravity well causing the event horizon, & is it scientifically supported?
John Paul:
What gravity well? You do realize we are talking white hole and not black hole. A white hole is a black hole running in reverse. IOW, things leave it. As it stands it appears to be as scientifically supported as the big-bang.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by mark24, posted 05-29-2002 4:39 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mark24, posted 05-29-2002 10:42 AM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 37 (10554)
05-29-2002 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Peter
05-29-2002 7:30 AM


Peter:
OK.
Let me get this straight ...
God creates the Earth, then goes 'Oops! Forgot to do the
stars ... I know I'll hold up time on Earth by putting it
in an event horizon while I fill in the rest of the cosmos.'
John Paul:
You don't have it straight. According to this premise God Creates a ball of water 2 light years across, with an EH that extends another .5 LY from it. God starts it rotating and as it rotates it collapses. Nuclear fusion starts. God stops the collapse and starts the expanse- the white hole is born.
Peter:
Well, God moves in mysterious ways, and can do anything. So this
hypothesis basically says 'God can do whatever He wants because
He's omnipotent' (apologies to any feminists who object to God
as He).
John Paul:
Perhaps, but that is not the issue. What we do now is to use science to understand God's Creation.
Peter:
That makes this thread a traditional creationist Vs. science
impasse.
John Paul:
Funny Newton didn't see it as an impasse. He was a Creationist ya know.
Peter:
If this event horizon had existed ... what evidence of its
passing should we expect ?
There must be some remnants ... after all it's only been gone
for 6000 years, tops. That's peanuts to the cosmos.
John Paul:
I doubt 6,000 is the correct number, but that would be Earth time. Billions of years worth of processes would have taken place outside of the EH as the EH passes Earth.
What would we expect to see- an expanding universe.
Peter:
Was the whole solar system in this event horizon ... or just earth ?
John Paul:
Everything, as in all the matter in the universe.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Peter, posted 05-29-2002 7:30 AM Peter has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 37 (10571)
05-29-2002 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mark24
05-29-2002 10:42 AM


Mark:
How does a white hole have an event horizon?
John Paul:
How Long is a chinaman.
(sorry couldn't resist)
My understanding is that anything with enough mass would have an EH. If all the mass of the universe were in one location I would think that would qualify. As the matter exits the white hole its EH shrinks until it is gone.
Mark:
Is anti-gravity supported in science?
John Paul:
Is anti-gravity part of the big-bang? My understanding is the same gravitatioal forces were at work in this scenario as in the big-bang.
Mark:
What prediction, exactly, produces a white hole?
John Paul:
1st this white hole is very different than any other theoretical white holes. White holes have been theorized to be at the other end of the worm hole created by a black hole. Matter enters the black hole, travels through the worm hole and exits the white hole. But that is NOT what Humphreys is theorizing.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mark24, posted 05-29-2002 10:42 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by mark24, posted 05-29-2002 7:56 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024